opinion he has of almost every body else, and the very learned reasons and sufficient grounds he has for supporting those twin opinions. Never was such power so wasted and thrown away. The proposition of a lady laureate is simply absurd, without being witty. Why not as soon have proposed the Infant Sappho? In short, if we ask again, _Where_ is the poet worthy to wear the crown which has dropped from the solemn brow of “old Pan,” “sole king of rocky Cumberland?”—Echo, from Glaramara, or the Langdale Pikes, might well answer, “Where?” We have, however, a notion of our own, which we mean, as a close to the article, to indicate. The laureateship was too long a sop for parasites, whose politics and poetry were equally tame. It seems now to have become the late reward of veteran merit—the Popedom of poetry. Why not, rather, hang it up as a crown, to be won by our rising bards—either as the reward of some special poem on an appointed subject, or of general merit? Why not delay for a season the bestowal of the laurel, and give thus a national importance to its decision? SIDNEY SMITH. BY GEORGE GILFILLAN. [Illustration.] Sidney Smith. It is melancholy to observe how speedily, successively, nay, almost simultaneously, our literary luminaries are disappearing from the sky. Every year another and another member of the bright clusters which arose about the close of the last, or at the beginning of this century, is fading from our view. Within nineteen years, what havoc, by the “insatiate archer,” among the ruling spirits of the time! Since 1831, Robert Hall, Andrew Thomson, Goethe, Cuvier, Mackintosh, Crabbe, Foster, Coleridge, Edward Irving, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Lamb, Southey, Thomas Campbell, &c., have entered on the “silent land;” and latterly has dropped down one of the wittiest and shrewdest of them all—the projector of the “Edinburgh Review”—the author of “Peter Plymley’s Letters”—the preacher—the politician—the brilliant converser—the “mad-wag”—Sidney Smith.